CAIDA’s AS-rank: measuring the influence of ASes on Internet Routing

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Measuring the Deployment of IPv6: Topology, Routing, and Performance Amogh Dhamdhere, Matthew Luckie, Bradley Huffaker, kc claffy (CAIDA / UC San Diego)

Advertisements

The Role IXPs and Peering Play in the Evolution of the Internet MENOG14, Dubai, March 2014 Stephen Wilcox, President and CTO, IX Reach.

1 Robert Lychev Sharon GoldbergMichael Schapira Georgia Tech Boston University Hebrew University.

Employing Agent-based Models to study Interdomain Network Formation, Dynamics & Economics Aemen Lodhi (Georgia Tech) 1 Workshop on Internet Topology &

Martin Suchara in collaboration with I. Avramopoulos and J. Rexford How Small Groups Can Secure Interdomain Routing.

CSE534- Fundamentals of Computer Networking Lecture 12-13: Internet Connectivity + IXPs (The Underbelly of the Internet) Based on slides by D. Choffnes.

IXP Workshop Costa Rica Routing Manifesto & BGP TE.

Let the Market Drive Deployment A Strategy for Transitioning to BGP Security Phillipa Gill University of Toronto Sharon Goldberg Boston University Michael.

CS 4700 / CS 5700 Network Fundamentals Lecture 16: IXPs (The Underbelly of the Internet) Revised 3/23/2015.

INTERDOMAIN ROUTING POLICY COS 461: Computer Networks Spring 2010 (MW 3:00-4:20 in COS 105) Mike Freedman

The need for BGP AfNOG Workshops Philip Smith. “Keeping Local Traffic Local”

Quantitative Analysis of BGP Route Leaks Benjamin Wijchers Benno Overeinder.

Interdomain Routing and The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Courtesy of Timothy G. Griffin Intel Research, Cambridge UK

Inferring Autonomous System Relationships in the Internet Lixin Gao Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Something We Always Wanted to Know about ASs: Relationships and Taxonomy Dmitri Krioukov X. Dimitropoulos, M. Fomenkov, B. Huffaker, Y.

Progress in inferring business relationships between ASs Dmitri Krioukov 4 th CAIDA-WIDE Workshop.

Ten Years in the Evolution of the Internet Ecosystem

Mohamed Hefeeda 1 School of Computing Science Simon Fraser University, Canada ISP-Friendly Peer Matching without ISP Collaboration Mohamed Hefeeda (Joint.

Server-based Inference of Internet Performance V. N. Padmanabhan, L. Qiu, and H. Wang.

Interdomain Routing and The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Courtesy of Timothy G. Griffin Intel Research, Cambridge UK

A View of the AS Hierarchy Provider - customer. A View of the AS Hierarchy No transitivity No SP concatenation Provider - customerData path.

INTERDOMAIN ROUTING POLICY READING: SECTIONS PLUS OPTIONAL READING COS 461: Computer Networks Spring 2009 (MW 1:30-2:50 in COS 105) Mike Freedman.

Interdomain Routing Establish routes between autonomous systems (ASes). Currently done with the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). AT&T Qwest Comcast Verizon.

Inherently Safe Backup Routing with BGP Lixin Gao (U. Mass Amherst) Timothy Griffin (AT&T Research) Jennifer Rexford (AT&T Research)

Announcement Paper summary due at 11:59PM before the class Sometimes there are two papers which are closely related. In your summary –Share the problem.

Let the Market Drive Deployment A Strategy for Transitioning to BGP Security Phillipa Gill University of Toronto Sharon Goldberg Boston University Michael.

The Shapley Value: Its Use and Implications on Internet Economics Richard T.B. Ma Columbia University Dah-ming Chiu, John C.S. Lui The Chinese University.

Internet Routing (COS 598A) Today: Interdomain Topology Jennifer Rexford Tuesdays/Thursdays 11:00am-12:20pm.

1 Interdomain Routing Policy Reading: Sections plus optional reading COS 461: Computer Networks Spring 2008 (MW 1:30-2:50 in COS 105) Jennifer Rexford.

Interdomain Routing Policy COS 461: Computer Networks Spring 2011 Mike Freedman 1.

University of Massachusetts, Amherst 1 On the Evaluation of AS Relationship Inferences Jianhong Xia and Lixin Gao Department of Electrical and Computer.

Stable Internet Routing Without Global Coordination Jennifer Rexford AT&T Labs--Research Joint work with Lixin Gao.

Telecommunications - Carriers  Different service providers/carriers does not guarantee diversity  Carriers often share cables, routes, and buildings.

Network Sensitivity to Hot-Potato Disruptions Renata Teixeira (UC San Diego) with Aman Shaikh (AT&T), Tim Griffin(Intel),

Impact of Prefix Hijacking on Payments of Providers Pradeep Bangera and Sergey Gorinsky Institute IMDEA Networks, Madrid, Spain Developing the Science.

IP is a Network Layer Protocol Physical 1 Network DataLink 1 Transport Application Session Presentation Network Physical 1 DataLink 1 Physical 2 DataLink.

CS 3700 Networks and Distributed Systems Inter Domain Routing (It’s all about the Money) Revised 8/20/15.

Amogh Dhamdhere (CAIDA) Constantine Dovrolis (Georgia Tech) ITER: A Computational Model to Evaluate Provider and Peer Selection in the Internet Ecosystem.

Chapter 6 IPv4 Addresses – Part 2 CIS 81 Networking Fundamentals Rick Graziani Cabrillo College Last Updated: 3/30/2008.

TDTS21: Advanced Networking Lecture 7: Internet topology Based on slides from P. Gill and D. Choffnes Revised 2015 by N. Carlsson.

A Value-based Framework for Internet Peering Agreements Amogh Dhamdhere (CAIDA) with Constantine Dovrolis (Georgia Tech) Pierre Francois.

1 Passive Network Tomography Using Bayesian Inference Lili Qiu Joint work with Venkata N. Padmanabhan and Helen J. Wang Microsoft Research Internet Measurement.

Aemen Lodhi (Georgia Tech) Amogh Dhamdhere (CAIDA)

CS 447 Networks and Data Communication Department of Computer Science Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Fall, 2015 Dr. Hiroshi Fujinoki

CAIDA’s AS-rank: measuring the influence of ASes on Internet Routing Matthew Luckie Bradley Huffaker Amogh Dhamdhere k claffy

1 Presentation_ID © 1998, Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet Routing Table Analysis Update Philip Smith APNIC Routing SIG, APRICOT, Kuala Lumpur,

The Economics of Transit and Peering Interconnections in the Internet Amogh Dhamdhere (CAIDA/UCSD) With Constantine Dovrolis (Georgia Tech)

Advancements in the Inference of AS Relationships Xenofontas Dimitropoulos (Fontas) (CAIDA/GaTech) Dmitri Krioukov Bradley Huffaker k claffy George Riley.

CS 4396 Computer Networks Lab BGP. Inter-AS routing in the Internet: (BGP)

1 Robert Lychev Sharon GoldbergMichael Schapira Georgia Tech Boston University Hebrew University.

1 Network Tomography Using Passive End-to-End Measurements Venkata N. Padmanabhan Lili Qiu Helen J. Wang Microsoft Research DIMACS’2002.

CSE534- Fundamentals of Computer Networking Lecture 12-13: Internet Connectivity + IXPs (The Underbelly of the Internet) Based on slides by D. Choffnes.

CSE 592 INTERNET CENSORSHIP (FALL 2015) LECTURE 16 PHILLIPA GILL - STONY BROOK U.

1 Agenda for Today’s Lecture The rationale for BGP’s design –What is interdomain routing and why do we need it? –Why does BGP look the way it does? How.

1 Merit Network: Connecting People and Organizations Since 1966 Business Continuity A Networking Perspective Bob Stovall Merit Annual Meeting June 22 &

Michael Schapira, Princeton University Fall 2010 (TTh 1:30-2:50 in COS 302) COS 561: Advanced Computer Networks

Inferring AS Relationships. The Problem  One view  AS relationships  BGP route tables  The other view  BGP route tables  AS relationships  Available.

Decoy Router Placement Jacopo Cesareo, Michael Schapira, and Jennifer Rexford Princeton University.

1 Network Tomography Using Passive End-to-End Measurements Lili Qiu Joint work with Venkata N. Padmanabhan and Helen J. Wang.

One Hop for RPKI, One Giant Leap for BGP Security Yossi Gilad (Hebrew University) Joint work with Avichai Cohen (Hebrew University), Amir Herzberg (Bar.

Decoy Router Placement Against a Smart Adversary Jacopo Cesareo, Michael Schapira, and Jennifer Rexford Princeton University.

1 On the Impact of Route Monitor Selection Ying Zhang* Zheng Zhang # Z. Morley Mao* Y. Charlie Hu # Bruce M. Maggs ^ University of Michigan* Purdue University.

CS 3700 Networks and Distributed Systems

CS 3700 Networks and Distributed Systems

Inferring Autonomous System Relationships in the Internet Lixin Gao Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

No Direction Home: The True cost of Routing Around Decoys

Amogh Dhamdhere (CAIDA/UCSD) Constantine Dovrolis (Georgia Tech)

Measured Impact of Crooked Traceroute

Routing: Link State Algorithm

Stable and Practical AS Relationship Inference with ProbLink

Presentation transcript:

CAIDA’s AS-rank: measuring the influence of ASes on Internet Routing Matthew Luckie Bradley Huffaker Amogh Dhamdhere Vasileios Giotsas k claffy http://as-rank.caida.org/

Overview Inferring AS relationships using publicly available BGP paths views of ~400 ASes at Route Views and RIPE RIS Inferring the influence of ASes based on their “customer cone” Traffic in your customer cone stays on-net and is the most profitable (when it reaches you) http://as-rank.caida.org/

AS Relationships – Validation Summary CAIDA: 2,370 2010 – 2012 83% p2p Most submitted via web form, some via email RPSL: 6,065 April 2012 100% p2c RIPE whois database, two-way handshake BGP Communities: 39,838 April 2012 59% p2c Dictionary of operator-published community meanings assembled by Vasileios Giotsas (UCL) Overall: 47,881 GT relationships, 63% p2c, 37% p2p ~38% of the publicly available graph.

AS Relationships - Validation p2c PPV p2p PPV CAIDA 99.6% 1/250 98.4% 1/63 UCLA 99.0% 1/100 90.9% 1/12 Isolario 90.3% 1/10 96.0% 1/25 Xia + Gao 90.6% 95.6% 1/23 Gao 84.7% 1/6.5 99.5% 1/200 SARK CSP ND-ToR Take home: difficult to be accurate at inferring both types of relationships

Definition – Customer Cones A’s customer cone: A, B, C, D, E, F B’s customer cone: B, E, F C’s customer cone: C, D, E

Customer Cone Computation AS relationships are complex: two ASes may have a c2p relationship in one location, but p2p elsewhere Define customer cone based on provider/peer observed view of an AS A sees D and E as indirect customers via B, so B’s customer cone only includes D, E from C. Might suffer from limited visibility A Region Y: “Europe” B Region X: USA B C NOT inferred to be part of B’s. C F G H D E

Caveats AS Relationship ecosystem is complex Don’t know about traffic Different relationships in different regions Can’t differentiate between paid-peers and settlement-free peers (financial difference, not routing) Don’t know about traffic Don’t have much visibility into peering BGP paths are messy (poisoning, leaking) NOT a clear metric of market power

CL – Qwest Verizon Sprint NTT Level3 Level3 - GBLX CL – Savvis AboveNet AT&T TeliaSonera XO TATA AOL Cogent ESNet France Tel. Deutsche Tel. Inteliquent Tel. Italia WorldCom BBN/Genuity Microsoft Will. Comms.

Level3 Level3 (GBLX) Cogent Inteliquent TeliaSon. NTT Tel. Italia TATA 44% Level3 + GBLX Level3 (GBLX) Cogent Inteliquent TeliaSon. NTT Level3 + Genuity Tel. Italia TATA Sprint Verizon XO AT&T CL (QW) AboveNet CL (SV) Verizon Sprint MCI

Level3 Level3 (GBLX) Cogent Inteliquent Sprint Verizon AT&T (MCI/CL)

Customer cone as a metric Fraction: 0.75 TP Fraction: 0.25 P1 P2 VP A B C D What fraction of ASes in a customer cone are reached via the top provider?

Data Sharing On publication: 97% of Validation Data (not directly reported) 15 years of AS relationship inferences 15 years of customer cone inferences